• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

Amadeus said:
Torture is a pretty simple concept. You seem unable to cope with the definition, so you're trying desperately to pass it off as something else (like a true Cheney disciple), while admonishing others for calling it what it is -- torture.
Click to expand...

Simple as you might say it is, you do not seem to be able to tell the difference between what is and what is not torture and keep misusing the word. But it might be that you are more interested in your ideology than correct language use, are therefore distorting meanings and resorting to newspeak.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm a liberal. Are you:

1) Calling me a *****?
2) Saying I support extraordinary rendition?
3) Saying I support torture by proxy?

If you say it, you better mean it.
Click to expand...

If you feel you aren't a *****, don't call yourself a liberal.
 
j-mac said:
What you going to do tough guy?
Click to expand...

I'm the tough guy? You're calling 40% of the country ******s. That's about as bro as it gets. Then again, you're not even man enough to step up to the plate and admit to when called out on it.

So are you calling me a *****, random guy hiding behind a computer screen on the Internet?

Per usual, you're wrong. There is nothing liberal about extraordinary rendition. We don't support it and never have. I don't like bull**** drone strikes either. Nor do I want to join ISIS, or any other crazy, uninformed accusations you're bound to make.
 
j-mac said:
Oh you think the US started endorsing Enhanced Interrogation with Bush, and Cheney?

"In the United States President Clinton authorized extraordinary rendition to nations known to practice torture, called torture by proxy.[2]"

Extraordinary rendition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it's not that libs don't believe in harsh interrogation, no. They are just ******s that can't do their own dirty work.
Click to expand...

Actually, the US itself has generally been involved in extraordinary rendition of individuals. Most interesting, we sent people to places such as and including Gaddafi's Libya and Assad's Syria for torture and then we went and bombed them later when they lost their usefulness to us.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm the tough guy? You're calling 40% of the country ******s. That's about as bro as it gets. Then again, you're not even man enough to step up to the plate and admit to when called out on it.

So are you calling me a *****, random guy hiding behind a computer screen on the Internet?

Per usual, you're wrong. There is nothing liberal about extraordinary rendition. We don't support it and never have. I don't like bull**** drone strikes either. Nor do I want to join ISIS, or any other crazy, uninformed accusations you're bound to make.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, extraordinary rendition was a product of the Clinton administration just as enhanced interrogation was a product of the Bush2 administration.
 
whysoserious said:
I'm the tough guy? You're calling 40% of the country ******s. That's about as bro as it gets. Then again, you're not even man enough to step up to the plate and admit to when called out on it.

So are you calling me a *****, random guy hiding behind a computer screen on the Internet?

Per usual, you're wrong. There is nothing liberal about extraordinary rendition. We don't support it and never have. I don't like bull**** drone strikes either. Nor do I want to join ISIS, or any other crazy, uninformed accusations you're bound to make.
Click to expand...

Yep, I did...And here I'll make it crystal clear because apparently liberals are kind of dense too..."I called liberals ******s".... If the shoe fits wear it.

They are anti american pieces of **** that side with anyone against the US, while being dishonest enough to enjoy the freedoms, and income levels, and standards of living that the country the rail against and side with our enemies against...So your little feelings got hurt because of a generalized statement about those who subscribe to that pathetic ideology, tough ****....

Clinton did ER, learn it, live it, love it....And Obama drones....But I am sure you somehow think that is repubs fault, because in addition to being all butt hurt over a generalized slight, you can not be honest about your own leaders and will do anything to distract from that, including looking quite foolish as you do now...
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonetheless, extraordinary rendition was a product of the Clinton administration just as enhanced interrogation was a product of the Bush2 administration.
Click to expand...

No argument. Doesn't mean liberals as a base support it, regardless of what some guy hiding behind a computer screen says while calling 40% of the country ******s.

Realllll men of Geniusssss. Mr. All Liberals are ******s guy... because calling people ******s on the Internet is the true sign of toughness.
 
JasperL said:
Several things - what makes something 'torture' versus not-torture?

You went through it in a very controlled environment, done to you by fellow soldiers or other friendlies. I'm unclear why that you lived through it and have by your account not suffered any long term harmful effects is a good measuring stick. Just as an example - thousands at least police officers have been tased as part of their training, and they lived through if fine, I'm sure it was painful or unpleasant. But it seems obvious that if a suspect was in a room being interrogated at the police department, and was tased 183 times over five sessions, suffered induced hypothermia, was forced to stand in their cell for hours or days with their hands shackled over their head, during questioning, we'd conclude that he or she was tortured or we're great at self delusion.

So I'll accept you have an informed opinion on it, but you can't say it's "absurd" for e.g. those who have also gone through it, in fact designed the program and participated in hundreds of waterboarding sessions, to conclude it is obviously torture. This person's opinion is more informed by experience than yours and considers how the 'technique' affected hundreds of individuals. And it's consistent with how we've labeled the technique for a century or so when our personnel haven't been doing it with the blessing of our government, and consistent with the views of those who endured the technique when done to them by our enemies.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 183 dunkings and the treatment in the legal brief. That difference is that between torture and unpleasant treatment. As aggravating as it is for activists of some persuasions to have to forfeit such a wonderfully emotionalizing catch word, it is dishonest to use it for the actions that were permitted.
And this goes for the meaning over the last hundred years. Torture was what Dr Mengele did and not bouncing a man against a soft wall or throwing a bible into a toilet.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
You edit out "tough guy"? LOL

I am the *****?
Click to expand...

I edited it out, because people like you go running off to mommy and daddy over that ****....You saw it though so I accomplished my purpose....
 
Jack Hays said:
Which is exactly how the US did it.
Click to expand...

Give me a break. JoG volunteered to do it, done by his friends or allies, controlled the extent of it by his own admission, was almost surely given a way to stop it during the process, started the day from his own bed, shower, with coffee, a danish, etc. and knew without any doubt at the end of the day he'd go home to same. Etc.

BTW, if you're tased 183 times in five sessions by the police, is that not-torture because the police might have been tased in training?
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonetheless, extraordinary rendition was a product of the Clinton administration just as enhanced interrogation was a product of the Bush2 administration.
Click to expand...
Now Obama just drops drones on them, killing everyone in the vicinity and no intelligence is acquired.. Is it just me or is the left less forgiving when Republicans protect the country and their 'ethics' and morals' take a holiday when Democrats are ordering drone attacks or 'EIT?
 
j-mac said:
Yep, I did...And here I'll make it crystal clear because apparently liberals are kind of dense too..."I called liberals ******s".... If the shoe fits wear it.

They are anti american pieces of **** that side with anyone against the US, while being dishonest enough to enjoy the freedoms, and income levels, and standards of living that the country the rail against and side with our enemies against...So your little feelings got hurt because of a generalized statement about those who subscribe to that pathetic ideology, tough ****....

Clinton did ER, learn it, live it, love it....And Obama drones....But I am sure you somehow think that is repubs fault, because in addition to being all butt hurt over a generalized slight, you can not be honest about your own leaders and will do anything to distract from that, including looking quite foolish as you do now...
Click to expand...

Haha. I'd love to take you to a dinner party and show you off. Here's a tip: No one is scared of you. You are as scary as you are intellectually sharp.

FYI, if you think all liberals are ******s, why don't you go to a liberal rally and yell that out for a bit? God that would be awesome.
 
JasperL said:
Give me a break. JoG volunteered to do it, done by his friends or allies, controlled the extent of it by his own admission, was almost surely given a way to stop it during the process, started the day from his own bed, shower, with coffee, a danish, etc. and knew without any doubt at the end of the day he'd go home to same. Etc.

BTW, if you're tased 183 times in five sessions by the police, is that not-torture because the police might have been tased in training?
Click to expand...

That gives you some idea how controlled and careful was the US activity.
 
j-mac said:
There I put it back just for you...Anything else you'd like to whine about?
Click to expand...

No one gives a **** what you do. It's just asinine that you call everyone ******s but edit out "tough guy". Is your brain stem functioning properly because that doesn't make any ****ing sense. LOL
 
whysoserious said:
Another guy who is not man enough to say what he means. Say it, don't imply it, big guy.
Click to expand...
What's to say that hasn't been said? There's not much I can add to the conversation apart from what I mentioned earlier. It's an observation I believe is correct.
 
Grant said:
Now Obama just drops drones on them, killing everyone in the vicinity and no intelligence is acquired.. Is it just me or is the left less forgiving when Republicans protect the country and their 'ethics' and morals' take a holiday when Democrats are ordering drone attacks or 'EIT?
Click to expand...

I don't mind the drone strikes, but I mind using them as a replacement for capture-and-interrogate.
 
JasperL said:
Well, gosh, if the people asked to find a legal rationale for torture somehow managed to place waterboarding in a legal not-torture box, then that's all that need be said. Why are we wasting time talking about moral and ethical issues at all, when the lawyers, hired by the people who wanted to torture detainees, found that, yes, you can do so, have spoken.

You've got to be joking citing those two as evidence for anything.

And I'll just note that you're all too willing to stridently disregard reasoned legal opinions of SC justices, but only when they don't come to conclusions you like, so I have no idea why you think this kind of argument is persuasive, especially in this context. Take any abuse of civil liberties or act of evil by ANY government. Almost by definition the abuse was placed into a box that made it "legal" at the time and place. We could quickly list 100 examples, here and abroad of "legal' but evil or morally repugnant acts.

Bottom line is anyone with a loved one subjected to what Yoo and Bybee concluded was legal not-torture is lying or very adept at self delusion if they say they'd conclude their loved one was subjected to legitimate interrogation techniques and that the interrogators would be justified in relying on a single admission by them during or after they were tortured/subjected to EIT. If you were waterboarded and believed it would stop the waterboarding, you and me and everyone here would admit to ANYTHING - that you were a space alien from another planet, a secret spy for Putin, a FDR's reincarnated dog, whatever. That's what torture does. You don't get those kinds of guaranteed results from any kind of legitimate "interrogation."
Click to expand...

No, I'm not joking about anything. You can give us your personal musings about what's moral and what's icky all day long, and it will say absolutely nothing about the only question that counts in this matter--whether any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violated any laws. In any case, I could just as easily question the morality of risking the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people, just so we wouldn't have to get rough with a few mass-murdering rats to make them tell us what they knew. It's clear you would have been content to let them get killed, while we dawdled and kept asking these bastards nicely to answer our questions.

I think Professor Yoo's legal arguments are very persuasive. By implying he's an unethical liar, rather than presenting arguments to the contrary, you're inviting people to suspect you're just taking the cheap, easy way out because your game is weak. What's keeping you? Let's see what you've got. Using the knowledge of the law about torture you claim to have, please explain, in detail, citing specific cases and statutes, how any of the enhanced interrogation techniques violates any U.S. law against torture.

You can't, because they don't.
 
Grant said:
What's to say that hasn't been said? There's not much I can add to the conversation apart from what I mentioned earlier. It's an observation I believe is correct.
Click to expand...

As I said to your cohort (what's it feel like to be affiliated with a guy like j-mac), if you are so sure liberals are ******s, why not go to a rally full of liberals and yell it out? Head to one of those "I can't breath" rallies, wear a sign that says liberals are all ******s, and then report back to me and let me know how it worked out.

It's easy for you to act tough on the Internet, guy. No one is impressed by you.
 
joG said:
There is a difference between 183 dunkings and the treatment in the legal brief. That difference is that between torture and unpleasant treatment. As aggravating as it is for activists of some persuasions to have to forfeit such a wonderfully emotionalizing catch word, it is dishonest to use it for the actions that were permitted.
Click to expand...

It's nothing more than your opinion on what is and isn't torture, and it's not shared by many with a lot more real world experience in it.

And I'm really unclear on how and where one draws this imaginary line. The purpose of waterboarding is the same whether you label it torture or use the Orwellian term EIT. Technique is the same, the results are the same, the prisoner suffers the same pain, panic, etc. What you're saying is there is a line somewhere that is determinable about how many times or how long is 'torture' and how many times it's not-torture. Explain that line if you don't mind and how you draw it.

It has to have something to do with the effects on the person, which would vary widely from person to person. But if you say that what was outlined in the legal brief and how it was used in practice is different, seems to me you're saying that if the technique doesn't have the intended effect - KSM was resistant and able to handle it better than expected - in the REAL WORLD, we just did it until it did have the intended effect. So where is the line? And why would I care where it was if we ignored the line when we needed to in order to get the desired effect. The line was just there for people to make themselves feel better about what we did.
 
JasperL said:
It's nothing more than your opinion on what is and isn't torture, and it's not shared by many with a lot more real world experience in it.

And I'm really unclear on how and where one draws this imaginary line. The purpose of waterboarding is the same whether you label it torture or use the Orwellian term EIT. Technique is the same, the results are the same, the prisoner suffers the same pain, panic, etc. What you're saying is there is a line somewhere that is determinable about how many times or how long is 'torture' and how many times it's not-torture. Explain that line if you don't mind and how you draw it.

It has to have something to do with the effects on the person, which would vary widely from person to person. But if you say that what was outlined in the legal brief and how it was used in practice is different, seems to me you're saying that if the technique doesn't have the intended effect - KSM was resistant and able to handle it better than expected - in the REAL WORLD, we just did it until it did have the intended effect. So where is the line? And why would I care where it was if we ignored the line when we needed to in order to get the desired effect. The line was just there for people to make themselves feel better about what we did.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it is his opinion. Torture is a word - it has a regular definition and a legal definition. By the dictionary definition, "enhanced interrogation" is certainly torture:

Torture - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something

: something that causes mental or physical suffering : a very painful or unpleasant experience
Click to expand...

Under International Law it is clearly torture as well:
APT - A legal definition of torture
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Click to expand...
 
whysoserious said:
No argument. Doesn't mean liberals as a base support it, regardless of what some guy hiding behind a computer screen says while calling 40% of the country ******s.

Realllll men of Geniusssss. Mr. All Liberals are ******s guy... because calling people ******s on the Internet is the true sign of toughness.
Click to expand...
It's not so much a name as a general characteristic of liberals. You may be a tough guy liberal physically but if you support liberalism in general then you will be thought of as a *****. That's the opinions others will hold and you should just accept that and move on. That slotting happens to non-liberals who are called 'racist', misogynist, etc. as well but you'll probably be silent when that unfairness occurs. That's why the ***** label.
 
Grant said:
You are using intelligence and facts against emotion and self loathing. It's an uphill battle.
Click to expand...

My goal is never to convince leftist dim bulbs--their faith in their quasi-religion is unshakable--but to show reasonable people that they are dim bulbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom